LEAGUE

Otago Witness, Issue 3808, 8 March 1927, Page 33

LEAGUE

THE NEW ZEALAND TEAM. THE TROUBLE ON TOUR. AUCKLAND, March 1. Despite the very evident agreement which members of the New Zealand League team have arrived at, to say nothing of the troubles which occurred during the tour abroad, it is equally clear from the little gathered on board the Marama this morning that there will be some sensational disclosures when the incidents of tl\e tour form the subject of an inquiry to be held by the New Zealand Rugby League Council on Thursday evening. “It has been a wonderful trip,” said the captain, Bert Avery, “but we were unlucky that there should be trouble shortly after the team left Auckland. However, I cannot say anything about that now, as there is to be an inquiry. Our team was a great one if all had held together, and I think we did very well.

Owing to the refusal of some of the players to take the field we were left with only five forwards to carry on for two months. The players were being shifted about all over the field, and, under the circumstances, the record of winning 50 per cent, of the matches must be considered satisfactory.” Like the captain, the managers, Messrs Mair and Ponder, thought the result had been satisfactory, but, while they would not discuss the discontent which obtained, they said the tour from the managerial standpoint had been a most trying one. The 19 loyal members of the side who saw the tour through were a bit disappointed that they had not been able to put together a better record. The one or two spoken to on board the ship this morning consider that the malcontents were quite wrong in the attitude they adopted. “There may have been conditions imposed which we did not entirely agree with, but most of us were prepared to put up with them, and it was the same for all. If a player had a grievance it was always heard before the whole ol the members.” “If the inquiry to be held is not going to be open to all, then it is not going to do the game any good,’’ said one prominent member. “Already the tour has done harm to the game, and to hush matters up is not going to help any with the public.” LIFE DISQUALIFICATION. EFFECTIVE IN ENGLAND. AUCKLAND, March 2. Disqualification for life was the penalty imposed on the seven Rugby League footballers—Mouat, L. Peterson, J. Wright, E J. Carroll, W. Devine, H. Singe, and F. Henry—by the New Zealand Rugby league Council, as the r&ult of the inquiry into the suspension of the players named for refusing' to play while in England with the New Zealand team. Mr J. Carlaw presided at the inquiry, which was attended by a full meeting of the council The proceedings were conducted in committee, and an exhaustive inquiry was held. Mr Inder appeared with Mouat. Peterson, Divine, Carroll, Singe, and Wright as counsel. Henry, who remained in England, was not represented by counsel. When questioned after the meeting Mr Carlaw said the disqualification would be effective in England.

A PLAYERS COMPLAINT. CHRISTCHURCH, March 4. “Nobody has heard our side of the story vet. Reporters everywhere have been chasing us for it, but it has not come out yet. When it does it will create a big surprise, and I think it will be the means of thofee life disqualifications being removed.” L. Petersen, one of the seven members of the New Zealand Rugby League team, upon whom life disqualifications have been imposed, made this statement this morning, when he returned from the north. “Mouat and Wright are up in Auckland now,” he said, “making arrangements for a further inquiry. That inquiry they held was no good. I think there will be another all right We were disqualified without being hoard, and we had no chance to defend ourselves. It was an inquiry into the so-called strike. What we want is an inquiry into the management of the whole tour. Anyhow there was no strike, as not one man in that team refused to play. We have been disqualified for striking, asid we did not strike at all. That is the position.

“When we arrived back in New Zealand the people said that it was only right that we should be disqualified. That was because they had not hea'rd our side of the story. We were bound by written agreement to give nothing to reporters anywhere during the tour. We did not either, but Mr Mair and Mr Ponder were giving the other side of the story at every opportunity. Nothing of our case has been published, and we do not want it published yet, but it will come out at the inquiry. It is such a good case that when it does come out the public will change their views. With regard to that other inquiry it was hopelessly unfair. If a man commits murder or theft he gets a chance to defend himself, but we did not. We can defend the charge against us with a substantia] case. Those disqualifications will be removed.”